Yes. Salt of the earth. Normal everyday people who were brought up in a normal home and schools, rather than being brought up in an anything goes California metropolis and attending school at some neoliberal college to indoctrinate them as an activist

That's exactly why this case was about a corporation's right to make religious choices that negatively affect its workforce, regardless of the faiths or lack thereof of those employees.

Free exercise of religion means you should be able to choose, for yourself, on religious grounds. This is why adult Jehovah's Witnesses can make informed choices to refuse blood transfusions, even if doing so costs them their lives. That's their free exercise of religion. They are not free to make the same choice for their children, let alone anyone else. That isn't "free exercise", any more; that's inflicting your religion on another.

And before anyone says this is an unfair comparison because blood transfusions are a bigger deal than 4 types of birth control; my issue is not the specifics of this case, it's the precedent that it sets and the rationale used to justify it.

HL is not preventing any employee from using any contraceptive.

People/Government/Corperations inflict religion/anti-religion on us all the time. People only moan and groan when they don't like a specific instance of it.

Yes. Salt of the earth. Normal everyday people who were brought up in a normal home and schools, rather than being brought up in an anything goes California metropolis and attending school at some neoliberal college to indoctrinate them as an activist

So someone who was born with money and went to preppy New England Schools where they were taught that poor people are a blight and that the more stuff you have the better your are?

Yes. Salt of the earth. Normal everyday people who were brought up in a normal home and schools, rather than being brought up in an anything goes California metropolis and attending school at some neoliberal college to indoctrinate them as an activist

I'm just quoting this to point out that you have a habit of discrediting yourself. I wish I could say I contributed, but all I've really done is highlighted your words. All the heavy lifting was done by you.

Why? Just because you aren't guaranteed a job doesn't mean you're guaranteed for me to support you. I'd figured out real quick how to become a better employee or go to some of those horrible Christian charities that actually exist to help people. Don't expect my ass to carry you

So someone who was born with money and went to preppy New England Schools where they were taught that poor people are a blight and that the more stuff you have the better your are?

New England is highly urban and liberal. You may mean the developing states in the Southeast.

Originally Posted by Gambit5555

Why? Just because you aren't guaranteed a job doesn't mean you're guaranteed for me to support you. I'd figured out real quick how to become a better employee or go to some of those horrible Christian charities that actually exist to help people. Don't expect my ass to carry you

On what grounds? To claim that it was a non-factor is to claim to have knowledge of the majority justice's thought process. The onus is on you to prove that it was a factor to whatever extent you believe it is - and "they are men" or "its human nature" are not arguments, but rather extremely broad dismissals of any given person's ability to think objectively.

I'm not saying the bias did not exist. I find it hard to believe that even supreme court justices are infallible in their reasoning. What I am saying is that there is nothing to indicate that sex was an influencing factor in their decision.

The point is, we should overlook sexism because someone else can give a band-aid.

You are right, the sexism is horrible. Hobby Lobby covers 16 forms of birth control, and only two are for men. Those sexist bastards. They probably cover a maternity leave that is far longer then paternity leave too. I'm so tired of this sexism against men. The war on men must end

They aren't providing them. The insurance company they pay is. The insurance company adding these 4 more isn't even statistically significant. This is anti-ACA and an argument not based in the real world.

- - - Updated - - -

Abuse victims make self-detrimental decisions all the time. Does it make it right?

And once again you have no argument so you attempt to build a fallacy. Sad really. I suppose to you all African American conservatives are abuse victims too. Because if they don't fall in line with your lumped way of thinking, then there is something wrong with them.get over your ego